How many nations could conceivably destroy america, if so inclined?

[Sisyphus]

Zero.

 

[CRUE CAB]

An army of 900 well trained men, smuggled across our wide open borders, and armed inside the United States would bring our society to collapse in a weekend. It doesn't take a military confrontation or a weapon of mass destruction.

1) They attack shopping malls / centers and kill thousands forcing America to shut down,
2) They destroy the grid by simply taking down massive transmission lines,
3) They hit key choke points and diesel fueling stations so that our commerce is toast, food shipments end,

America would implode in 10-20 days.

Not a chance.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Any one of Russia, UK and France, could get up with a bad hangover and fire 200 nukes stateside.
Russia could probably send 2000 nukes stateside.

Is there anyone else out there that could get up tomorrow and end your world, if they decided to?

it's a good thing that you need to more then one person to activate a nuclear launch.

was the standard way to activate a nuclear launch was to turn two seperate keys at the same time?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

On the contrary MAD becomes much more relevant. Normal people don't like dying.

but not every country is led by a normal person. then again what is normal anymore?

 

[jetski]

The decision on Trident has not yet been taken and has been left until after the next general election in 2015 :roll:

Cameron in coalition rift over Trident nuclear system | Reuters

The Tories currently support replacing Trident, the Lib Dems are against and Labour is yet to announce a firm decision as to where they stand on the issue but have been keen to examine alternatives to the expensive Trident replacement system. The future of Trident will not be determined until after the 2015 election and will very much depend on which political party or coalition takes office.



You disagree with the UK Parliamentary Defence Select Committee, as I am not arguing I am merely stating fact. :roll:

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

im not quite sure you understand what youve quoted.

show me where the select committee even said that it was impossible to launch independently.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Has somebody been putting LSD into the water supply again?

 

[Papa bull]

Has somebody been putting LSD into the water supply again?

That would explain a lot.

 

[jetski]

That would explain a lot.

indeed america is invincible, and all the other nations with nukes, even the ones with submarines that never have to come up, have no deployment...

america could easily withstand 200 nukes ... la de dah.

i think the thread is making a cute point about MAD in a multi polar world.

 

[Oozlefinch]

i think the thread is making a cute point about MAD in a multi polar world.

And I think everybody over the age of 10 is aware of the concept of MAD, no reason to rehash it over and over again. Especially with fantastic numbers that are not even close to reality.

2,000 nukes indeed.

 

[jetski]

And I think everybody over the age of 10 is aware of the concept of MAD, no reason to rehash it over and over again. Especially with fantastic numbers that are not even close to reality.

2,000 nukes indeed.

Russias current stockpile is 10 000 bud.

And MAD is real. But it works better with 2 big power blocs and not 12 -20 different nations each with a doomsday device and ever better methods of masking its source.

 

[Surtr]

Any one of Russia, UK and France, could get up with a bad hangover and fire 200 nukes stateside.
Russia could probably send 2000 nukes stateside.

Is there anyone else out there that could get up tomorrow and end your world, if they decided to?

19 pissed off arabs turned our entire world around, you really think it takes an army to destroy us?

 

[Peter King]

An army of 900 well trained men, smuggled across our wide open borders, and armed inside the United States would bring our society to collapse in a weekend. It doesn't take a military confrontation or a weapon of mass destruction.

1) They attack shopping malls / centers and kill thousands forcing America to shut down,
2) They destroy the grid by simply taking down massive transmission lines,
3) They hit key choke points and diesel fueling stations so that our commerce is toast, food shipments end,

America would implode in 10-20 days.

I do not believe that would happen, the US has more than enough manpower to destroy an army of 900 well trained men. The US has swat teams, army bases, more military hardware than any 900 man army could smuggle across the border and then we are not even talking about drones.

Not going to happen IMHO, not in 10 years not ever.

 

[Chatter]

im not quite sure you understand what youve quoted.

show me where the select committee even said that it was impossible to launch independently.

I am well aware as to what I have posted. We don't even own the trident missiles (they are leased from the US), can't maintain them without the Americans and can't launch them with any degree of accuracy with out American help. Hardly an independent nuclear deterrent. :roll:

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence


System Degree of dependency

Warhead The UK warhead is a copy of the US W76 warhead.

Arming, fusing and firing system

This triggers the explosion. The model used in UK warheads was designed by the US Sandia Laboratory and is almost certainly procured from the USA.

High-explosive (HE)

This starts the nuclear explosion. The UK uses a different HE to the USA. Key explosives calculations for the US warhead cannot simply be duplicated so US labs assess the UK HE's long-term performance.

Neutron generator

This initiates nuclear fission. The neutron generator used in UK warheads is the MC4380, which is manufactured in the USA and acquired "off the shelf".

Gas reservoir

This supplies tritium to boost the fission process. It is most likely that the reservoir used in UK warheads is manufactured in the USA. UK gas reservoirs are filled with tritium in the USA.

Re-entry body shell

This is the cone-shaped body which contains the warhead. The UK purchases the Mark 4 re-entry body shell from the USA.

The D5 missile

The UK does not own its Trident missiles—they are leased from the USA. UK Trident submarines must regularly visit the US base at King's Bay, Georgia to return their missiles to the US stockpile for maintenance and replace them with others.

Guidance system

The Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident D5 missiles is designed and made in the USA by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

Submarines

UK Vanguard-class Trident submarines are UK-made, but many aspects of the design are copied from US submarines and many components are bought from the USA.

Navigation

The high accuracy of the Trident D5 missile depends on the submarine's position being precisely determined. This is achieved using two systems: GPS, which relies on satellites, and the Electrostatically Supported Giro Navigation System (ESGN), which uses gyroscopes. In both cases UK Trident submarines uses the same US system as the US Navy submarines. The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

Targeting

Target packages are designed and formatting tapes produced on shore, then stored on the submarine—using US software at each stage.

Onshore targeting

The software installed in the computers at the Nuclear Operations and Targeting Centre in London is based on US models and is probably derived from the US Navy's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Integrated Planning System.

Weather and gravity data

The US Navy supplies local gravitational information and forecasts of weather over targets, both of which are vital to high missile accuracy, to US and UK submarines.

Fire control system (FCS)

Used to assign targets to the warheads on the submarines. UK submarines carry a slightly different model to that on US submarines. However, all the hardware and software used by the system is US-produced. The hardware is produced by General Dynamics Defense Systems. The contracts show that the UK uses similar, if not quite identical, software.

Management

British nuclear warheads are designed and made at Aldermaston near Reading. Aldermaston is part managed by the US corporation Lockheed Martin. Repairs to Britian's Trident submarine are carried out at Devonport, which is part managed by another US corporation, Halliburton.

Research and development

There is extensive cooperation between Aldermaston and America's nuclear weapon laboratories—Los Alamos in New Mexico and Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California.

Testing

The W76 warhead was tested at the US nuclear test site in Nevada in the early 1990s. The UK has no test site of its own. The missiles are test launched from British submarines under US supervision at Cape Canaveral off the Florida coast. These tests are analysed by the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) at Johns Hopkins University and by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.

 

[cpwill]

Has somebody been putting LSD into the water supply again?

"Grandma, have you seen my LSD? It's a small blue pill, sort of like your...."


"No, son, I haven't. BUT HAVE YOU SEEN THE ****ING DRAGON IN THE KITCHEN?!?"



:lamo

 

[cpwill]

I am well aware as to what I have posted. We don't even own the trident missiles (they are leased from the US), can't maintain them without the Americans and can't launch them with any degree of accuracy with out American help. Hardly an independent nuclear deterrent. :roll:

That depends sort of on your definition of "accuracy". If you are trying to hit a particular window, and we are able to suddenly deny you access to mensurated coordinates.... nukes dont hit windows. they hit cities.

 

[Chatter]

That depends sort of on your definition of "accuracy". If you are trying to hit a particular window, and we are able to suddenly deny you access to mensurated coordinates.... nukes dont hit windows. they hit cities.

The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

In essence the missiles are leased from the US and can be taken back from us if the US so wished, the missiles are maintained using American companies and American technology and in order to actually launch them with any degree of accuracy relies on US GPS, which can also be withdrawn. I would hardly say that this constitutes an out and out independent nuclear deterrent. :roll:

 

[cpwill]

The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

Probably. That would require quite a lot of advance warning, however. Even then it wouldn't render it useless - you could simply work from your last known point and navigate from there.


However, missiles do not require constant GPS feed to launch and hit a city. When Hitler rained V-2s down on London, for example, GPS support was non-existant.

 

[CalGun]

No army would be engaged. The 900 would divide into 300 cells of 3 and wreck havoc simultaneously. If encountered by local law enforcement the later would be out gunned and the military far too slow to respond. At first each community would think its just them, and just when they realize it's nation wide the power would be shut off.

Soldiers trained as terrorist is not something a military, an army, or navy can stop. The only way to prevent it is to make sure our relationships with other countries are such it would never happen. If I were Assad and I thought I was going to end up like saddam or kadaffi you can bet your butt I'd make it happen.

I do not believe that would happen, the US has more than enough manpower to destroy an army of 900 well trained men. The US has swat teams, army bases, more military hardware than any 900 man army could smuggle across the border and then we are not even talking about drones.

Not going to happen IMHO, not in 10 years not ever.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Russias current stockpile is 10 000 bud.

And MAD is real. But it works better with 2 big power blocs and not 12 -20 different nations each with a doomsday device and ever better methods of masking its source.

And I know that MAD is real, I just said so.

But as for the size of the Russian stockpile, so what? Who cares, bud?

Their active warheads (whose actually maintained and capable of being used) only numbers a little over 3,000. And the most important figure is the delivery systems.

Russia at this time only has around 400 ICBMs. That have another 600 for use in their Ballistic Nuclear submarines, but only 17 subs that are in service (and it is estimated only 6-8 are in operational condition). They have another 800 cruise missiles, but less then 80 bombers to carry them (only 16 of which are really a threat to the US - the others are antiquated relics from the early 1950's).

So the only real threat from Russia is their ICBMs, and it is estimated that no more then half are aimed at the United States. The rest are aimed at China, the Middle East, and Europe. So as you can see, the actual threat is far less then 10,000. It is even far less then 2,000.

I do not live off of fear, but off of facts. And your hyperinflated figures do not stand up when you add in reality.

*****

When looked at through reality, the Russian threat is nowhere near what the Soviet threat was, and for many reasons.

For one, we are no longer facing each other across the Iron Curtain. With Eastern Europe going independent, their front lines are much reduced, and tensions are lowered. Then to add to that you have the myriad treaties between the US and Russia which have reduced inventories and delivery systems to a fraction of what they used to be.

Their most serious threat is their ICBMs. But only around 200 (1/10 of your number) is aimed at the US. And most of those are at military bases (specifically Air Force and Navy bases). Then the next threat is their submarines, but most of those are quite old, and have not been well maintained. They have 1 SSBNs, 1 new one, 9 from the 1980's, 2 from the 1970's. Several are already slated for retirement in the next 5 years, and at least 2 are undergoing major overhauls and are out of service.

Then there are the 6 SSGN (cruise missile) platforms. These are modified Oscar II subs, from the 1970's. 2 of the 6 are undergoing repairs and upgrades.

Then you have the Russian Air Force. The majority of their strategic bomber fleet is the venerable Tu-95 (62 aircraft), a prop driven relic that is a direct copy of the US B-29 Superfortress. A good enough bomb truck for skies where they have air superiority, but nowhere near good enough for any kind of penetration mission. So count those things out for use against the US.

Then you have the Tu-22, but ignore those, by treaty (and design) they are not nuke capable.

Then the last is the Tu-160, their only "modern" Strategic bomber. Pretty much a copy of the B-1 Lancer in design and capability, this is a fairly impressive strategic bomber. However, Russia only has 16 of them, so not a very serious threat with so few numbers.

There you have it, a pretty good rundown of Russian strategic assets. And as you can see, with that much equipment, there is simply no way they can strike anybody with their "10,000 nuke stockpile", or even their "3,000+ active warhead" stockpile.

Now feel free when you want to talk real numbers again.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The USA has the ability to deny access to GPS at any time, rendering that form of navigation and targeting useless if the UK were to launch without US approval.

Missiles operated just fine for decades without GPS. And they would continue to do so.

GPS only really comes into play when you are talking about the CEP of a ballistic weapon, it's "Circular Error Probable" (or to put it simply, how accurate it is).

If you look at our earlier generations of ballistic missiles, the CEP was quite big. Actually, it was commonly accepted that prior to the 1980's, the CEP of most of our ballistic missiles was in the range of 1-2 miles (but some were as small as 800-900 meters). This is why we still had the doctrine of the use of bombers against targets where pinpoint accuracy was needed. Then in the 1980's and the use of GPS, this shrank drastically. Now, most of our Ballistic missiles have a CEP of 200 meters or less.

The missiles did not get any more accurate, they just use GPS now to more accurately guide themselves to their target. So take away GPS, and your CEP simply goes back to the 1-1.5km mark. And when you are talking about a nuclear warhead, unless you are going for a pinpoint target that is generally accurate enough.

 

[jetski]

And I know that MAD is real, I just said so.

But as for the size of the Russian stockpile, so what? Who cares, bud?

Their active warheads (whose actually maintained and capable of being used) only numbers a little over 3,000. And the most important figure is the delivery systems.

Russia at this time only has around 400 ICBMs. That have another 600 for use in their Ballistic Nuclear submarines, but only 17 subs that are in service (and it is estimated only 6-8 are in operational condition). They have another 800 cruise missiles, but less then 80 bombers to carry them (only 16 of which are really a threat to the US - the others are antiquated relics from the early 1950's).

So the only real threat from Russia is their ICBMs, and it is estimated that no more then half are aimed at the United States. The rest are aimed at China, the Middle East, and Europe. So as you can see, the actual threat is far less then 10,000. It is even far less then 2,000.

I do not live off of fear, but off of facts. And your hyperinflated figures do not stand up when you add in reality.

*****

When looked at through reality, the Russian threat is nowhere near what the Soviet threat was, and for many reasons.

For one, we are no longer facing each other across the Iron Curtain. With Eastern Europe going independent, their front lines are much reduced, and tensions are lowered. Then to add to that you have the myriad treaties between the US and Russia which have reduced inventories and delivery systems to a fraction of what they used to be.

Their most serious threat is their ICBMs. But only around 200 (1/10 of your number) is aimed at the US. And most of those are at military bases (specifically Air Force and Navy bases). Then the next threat is their submarines, but most of those are quite old, and have not been well maintained. They have 1 SSBNs, 1 new one, 9 from the 1980's, 2 from the 1970's. Several are already slated for retirement in the next 5 years, and at least 2 are undergoing major overhauls and are out of service.

Then there are the 6 SSGN (cruise missile) platforms. These are modified Oscar II subs, from the 1970's. 2 of the 6 are undergoing repairs and upgrades.

Then you have the Russian Air Force. The majority of their strategic bomber fleet is the venerable Tu-95 (62 aircraft), a prop driven relic that is a direct copy of the US B-29 Superfortress. A good enough bomb truck for skies where they have air superiority, but nowhere near good enough for any kind of penetration mission. So count those things out for use against the US.

Then you have the Tu-22, but ignore those, by treaty (and design) they are not nuke capable.

Then the last is the Tu-160, their only "modern" Strategic bomber. Pretty much a copy of the B-1 Lancer in design and capability, this is a fairly impressive strategic bomber. However, Russia only has 16 of them, so not a very serious threat with so few numbers.

There you have it, a pretty good rundown of Russian strategic assets. And as you can see, with that much equipment, there is simply no way they can strike anybody with their "10,000 nuke stockpile", or even their "3,000+ active warhead" stockpile.

Now feel free when you want to talk real numbers again.

Theres 200 nukes pointed at you by a nation with deployment capacity...

You dont live on fear, you live on the mercy of others.

 

[jetski]

Missiles operated just fine for decades without GPS. And they would continue to do so.

GPS only really comes into play when you are talking about the CEP of a ballistic weapon, it's "Circular Error Probable" (or to put it simply, how accurate it is).

If you look at our earlier generations of ballistic missiles, the CEP was quite big. Actually, it was commonly accepted that prior to the 1980's, the CEP of most of our ballistic missiles was in the range of 1-2 miles (but some were as small as 800-900 meters). This is why we still had the doctrine of the use of bombers against targets where pinpoint accuracy was needed. Then in the 1980's and the use of GPS, this shrank drastically. Now, most of our Ballistic missiles have a CEP of 200 meters or less.

The missiles did not get any more accurate, they just use GPS now to more accurately guide themselves to their target. So take away GPS, and your CEP simply goes back to the 1-1.5km mark. And when you are talking about a nuclear warhead, unless you are going for a pinpoint target that is generally accurate enough.

This. Anyone who thinks the brits wouldnt be able to launch 200 nukes at america is delusional.

The blowback is a different argument. Its more than obvious that they could do it though.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Theres 200 nukes pointed at you by a nation with deployment capacity...

You dont live on fear, you live on the mercy of others.

This. Anyone who thinks the brits wouldnt be able to launch 200 nukes at america is delusional.

The blowback is a different argument. Its more than obvious that they could do it though.

No, I do not live in fear. Because I am a rational individual, not a paranoid that lives in a constant state of anxiety which rules my life.

And as for the capabilities of the British, first let's ignore the fact that our two nations have been allies for well over 100 years now. But let's look at what they have.

A total missile inventory of 225 warheads. However, they do not maintain either ICBMs or Strategic Nuclear Bombers, so for their only delivery platform they use submarines.

Specifically their 4 Vanguard class SSBNs. Of these 4, only 3 are currently operational (1 is undergoing her 2 year long maintenance and upgrade period). And of the 3 in service, the next will begin her 2 year maintenance in 2014 when the other one leaves. At most the Brits only have 3 of their 4 SSBNs in operational status at any one time. And yea, they use the US Trident II missile, so we know exactly what it is capable of.

Look, do you really want to continue to play this game? You can continue to spew around fantasies of unicorns and rainbows, and I will continue to come back with hard facts, and not moonbeams and happy thoughts.

And no, I am not in fear. Any time you feel afraid of the nukes in the world, simply repeat the following, it will make you feel better:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing......Only I will remain

 

[German guy]

I'm more afraid of a collapse of the world's financial system as a cause of the collapse of the $US. The resulting chaos including military action is a frightening idea.

As long as the $US is up and well, I'm not terribly concerned.

 

[Verthaine]

No army would be engaged. The 900 would divide into 300 cells of 3 and wreck havoc simultaneously. If encountered by local law enforcement the later would be out gunned and the military far too slow to respond. At first each community would think its just them, and just when they realize it's nation wide the power would be shut off.

Soldiers trained as terrorist is not something a military, an army, or navy can stop. The only way to prevent it is to make sure our relationships with other countries are such it would never happen. If I were Assad and I thought I was going to end up like saddam or kadaffi you can bet your butt I'd make it happen.

While anything canhappen, the scenario you described has never happened at the scale you describe,as far as I know.Saddam,Khadaffi,and even Bin Laden didn't (or couldn't) launch an attack against us of that scale.